Delegates
to the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) met in two Working Groups throughout the day.
Working Group I (WG-I) discussed: handling, transport, packaging and
identification; infor≠mation sharing; and other implementation issues.
Working Group II (WG-II) discussed liability and redress, and compliance.
Contact groups on outstanding provisions regarding documentation in
Article 18.2 and on compliance also met. Left photo: The dias of Working
Group I chaired by FranÁois Pythoud (Switzerland).

WORKING
GROUP I: HANDLING, TRANSPORT, PACKAGING AND IDENTIFICATION

Delegations continued discussions on particular
recommendations not agreed by the expert groups (UNEP/CBD/ ICCP/3/7/Add.2
and 7/Add.3) on documentation regarding: living modified organisms (LMOs)
for contained use (Article 18.2(b)); LMOs for intentional introduction
(Article 18.2(c)); and LMOs for food, feed or processing (LMO-FFPs) (Article
18.2(a)).

Egypt, for the AFRICAN GROUP, noted implications
for liability in cases of incomplete information.

ETHIOPIA requested consideration of LMOs
in transit and pharmaceuticals for humans and animals.

ARGENTINA, stated that
documentation should not prevent commodity trade, noting that the two-year
period would allow countries to better determine necessary future
requirements.

INFORMATION SHARING:

NORWAY, called for rules for use of unique identifiers, and advocated
an open-ended expert group to develop recommendations on the issue for the
first Meeting of the Parties (MOP).

CANADA suggested that national and international organizations provide
options for unique identifier systems.

WORKING
GROUP II:LIABILITY
AND REDRESS

On
the expert groupís terms of reference (TORs), many supported the groupís
open-ended composition, flexibility of its TORs and periodic reports to the
MOP. Delegates highlighted the type, definition and threshold of damage.

Cameroon, on behalf of the AFRICAN GROUP, stressed inter-generational
damages and linked compliance to liability and redress.

AUSTRALIA recommended coherence on definitions used under the
Protocolís Article 27 and CBD Article 14.2 on liability and redress.

COMPLIANCE:

The Secretariat introduced UNEP/CBD/ ICCP/3/4 and
INF/3. Delegates agreed to focus on bracketed text. On the section on
objective, nature and underlying principles, many developing countries
favored retaining reference to common but differentiated responsibilities
and deleting the specific refer≠ence to Rio Principle 7.

KENYA, supported by others, proposed a new option: referencing the
principle in both the section on underlying principles and the section on
measures to promote compliance.

NORWAY supported text specifying that committee members serve in their
individual capacity and in the Protocolís best interest.